Did South Vietnam deserve to be destroyed?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's something else to consider. Had South Vietnam won, Pol Pot probably would've remained in power a lot longer.

[The Duke]

The South deserved to be toppled, because the people of South Vietnam deserved better.  They did not deserve worse, which is what they got when Ho Chi Minh took over.

If we're in a vaccuum, they deserved to be toppled, but we don't live in a vaccuum.  In the real world, they were better than the Northern government.

[The Duke]

And another thing, since commuism is a kind of repression (a repression of economic freedom) a communist democracy is no better than a capitalist dictatorship since both repress freedom entirely in one aspect of life.  The North repressed both economic and political freedom, the south only political freedom.  Denying the people the right to better their own material condition is a kind of repression equal to (maybe greater than) denying them the right to choose their own leadership.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But like I pointed out, had the North not taken over and wiped out Pol Pot, he would've remained in power much longer, and possibly taken over other areas as well. There could've been a genocide on the level of Hitler.

Really, unified Vietnam did a much more humanitarian accomplishment in destroying the Khmer Rouge than anything South Vietnam ever did.

[The Duke]

We could have taken Pol Pot ourselves if it wasn't for the anti-war movement denouncing our involvement in Southeast Asia.  It was the anti-war left who wanted us out, and with us out there was only the NVA to take out Pol Pot.  An American victory over Ho Chi Minh would have given Nixon the political capital (as the victorious war President) to take out Pol Pot and forever rid Southeast Asia from communism.

[dazzleman]

Here's something else to consider. Had South Vietnam won, Pol Pot probably would've remained in power a lot longer.

Had South Vietnam won, Pol Pot never would have come to power in the first place.

[Nym90]

And another thing, since commuism is a kind of repression (a repression of economic freedom) a communist democracy is no better than a capitalist dictatorship since both repress freedom entirely in one aspect of life. The North repressed both economic and political freedom, the south only political freedom. Denying the people the right to better their own material condition is a kind of repression equal to (maybe greater than) denying them the right to choose their own leadership.

Well, obviously this is only true if you consider conservative positions on economics to be good and liberal positions to be bad. One can dispute whether someone truly has more economic freedom if that person is poor and lacks the opportunity to empower themself and become wealthy, and even if someone can be argued to still have more freedom in that case, whether economic freedom does that person any good if they are in the aforementioned position. A complete and total laissez-faire capitalist system, (in other words, the exact opposite of communism) doesn't necessarily provide more freedom; I'd argue that in many cases there is much less freedom for the poor and middle class, indirectly if not directly.

So for one thing, it depends on how you define economic freedom, and for another thing, your judgement assumes that, say, a +10 economic political compass score is better than a -10 score.

Now, I don't know what kind of economic system South Vietnam had, was it complete laissez-faire capitalist, with no regulations at all, or was it more like our system, with a balance between the two extremes? If it was the latter, than strike that comment, you'd be right, South Vietnam's economic system would be much better than North Vietnam's. But one extreme on the economic scale is not necessarily better, or for that matter even providing more freedom, than the other in my view.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nixon didn't care about Pol Pot, he was an anti-Soviet communist, so according to the US there was nothing wrong with having him in power. Pol Pot actually would've never come to power if the US didn't fight the war, the region wouldn't have been destabalized to the level it was.

Even if that were to happen and Nixon were to invade, it would've meant more dead Americans. Pull all troops out, no more dead Americans, and Pol Pot is removed with no dead Americans.

[The Duke]

Nym90,

I'd consider liberal positions to still be consistent with economic freedom.  As far as I know, neither you nor the majority of Democrats believe in state owned industry, collective agriculture, wage caps, or taxes on accumulated wealth.  The communist sytem is a far cry from what most American liberals believe.  Communism is unfree, US and European liberalism is free.

BRTD,

I remain in shock at your callousness towards the lives of non-Americans.

[Nym90]

Nym90,

I'd consider liberal positions to still be consistent with economic freedom.  As far as I know, neither you nor the majority of Democrats believe in state owned industry, collective agriculture, wage caps, or taxes on accumulated wealth.  The communist sytem is a far cry from what most American liberals believe.  Communism is unfree, US and European liberalism is free.

BRTD,

I remain in shock at your callousness towards the lives of non-Americans.

Yes, everything you said is true.

[Beet]

The U.S. did not really lose the Vietnam war. At the time of US withdrawal in 1972 the Southern regime was quite alive and doing fine. Not only had most of the VC been wiped out in Tet 1968, in fact they had just won a great victory repulsing the North's major spring 1972 offensive, despite the North's assistance of large artillery and tanks from the Soviet Union. If not for their defeat the North never would have agreed to the 1972 peace talks.

It wasn't until the North learned how to coordinate the heavy tanks they received from the Soviets into a conventional force did they win three years later. But by that time the US had already absolved any involvement. Hence it was not necessarily the US defeat it is oft said to be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD,

I remain in shock at your callousness towards the lives of non-Americans.

I probably wouldn't have quite so much had it not have been for the draft.

[jaichind]

I had great sympothy with Republic of Vietnam just like my Republic of China on Taipei as a non-Communist alternative to our rivals.  On the other hand it failed mainly because on the grass roots level its main supporters are the rich and powerful Chinese populations in South Vietnam (they got to have their own seperate laws, often acting like a superclass.)  The nexus of Chinese money and American military/economic aid with Republic of Vietnam government made it puppet regime both in popular image and indeed reality.  The Chinese in Vietnam that bought access to the Republic of Vietnam government served it ill as they were targets of persecution after the victory of North Vietnam.

[dazzleman]

The U.S. did not really lose the Vietnam war. At the time of US withdrawal in 1972 the Southern regime was quite alive and doing fine. Not only had most of the VC been wiped out in Tet 1968, in fact they had just won a great victory repulsing the North's major spring 1972 offensive, despite the North's assistance of large artillery and tanks from the Soviet Union. If not for their defeat the North never would have agreed to the 1972 peace talks.

It wasn't until the North learned how to coordinate the heavy tanks they received from the Soviets into a conventional force did they win three years later. But by that time the US had already absolved any involvement. Hence it was not necessarily the US defeat it is oft said to be.

That's a point I have sometimes made.  We defeated the North Vietnamese militarily, but we and our allies didn't have the will to translate that into a real victory in the war.

I see the Vietnam War as the foreign policy version of the Great Society.  Instead of helping the South Vietnamese to help themselves, the big powerful US government went in and did for them what they should have been doing for themselves.  That's the exact same thing the Great Society did with poor people.

In Vietnam, we elbowed aside the people there and took over their defense, when we should have provided realistic assistance and training.  After carrying the whole burden for a few years, we got sick of it and left, and they collapsed.  It always saddens me to think of the terrible fate suffered so many people who took great risks to side with us against the Communists.  I know a person whose father spent years in a re-education (concentration) camp.  Whatever the shortcomings of the South Vietnamese regime, nothing will convince me that they weren't a preferable alternative to the vile North Vietnamese communists.